NRA calls for more regulation of bump stock devices used by shooter.
276 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Biohazard99;52755667]That's quite literally firing from the hip.
I'm kinda shaking my head at this. It's clear the NRA isn't doing this out of the kindness of its heart but rather so no additional pressure can be put upon them. Bumpfires do not magically make your gun an automatic - they are a crude way of converting the trigger mechanism to keep hitting due to recoil. They are also much harder to control then an automatic, which are super rare and expensive[/QUOTE]
I keep seeing this "bumpfires don't make it automatic" argument, but honestly, if the end result (firing a shit-load of bullets in a short time span) is nearly the same, why does it matter?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52756277]I keep seeing this "bumpfires don't make it automatic" argument, but honestly, if the end result is nearly the same, why does it matter?[/QUOTE]
Because of how the wording could technically apply to other things or mechanisms, i believe.
You need to be very careful and specific when it comes to these kinds of things or you could accidentally do something like how in an attempt to outlaw beastiality, Florida accidentally outlawed sex entirely for a bit that one time.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52755983]Bog standard handguns.
They still kill, but the self defense aspect is A-OK by my books. Not that my books should matter, ofc. Just throwing my anti-gun 2c into the shitheap.[/QUOTE]
You realize the vast majority of gun crime is committed with pistols right? Almost no gun crime is done with rifle.
This is why emotional responses and regulating things for being "scary" is blatantly retarded
,
[editline]7th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52756277]I keep seeing this "bumpfires don't make it automatic" argument, but honestly, if the end result (firing a shit-load of bullets in a short time span) is nearly the same, why does it matter?[/QUOTE]
Because its not the same. It may seem semantic but its an extremely important distinction to make when writing legislation. It may seem like dumb semantics but its the difference between just bumpfire stocks being banned, and all aftermarket triggers being banned with it.
It shouldn't be up for debate if whether or not legislators need to be specific, precise, and informed with their legislation.
Ok, let's try this again.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52756196]Removing your access to a tool does not mean you'll lose your free speech and right to vote. Plenty of nations across the world, some of which known for being bastions of human rights, do not allow people to carry guns as a constitutional right and they haven't devolved into some kind of totalitarian state where people live in constant fear of government suppression.[/QUOTE]
We're not Europe, this country wasn't built upon trusting or relying upon the government. Your needs are not the same as ours. Also we've lost a bunch of other rights already and would rather not lose the one big right meant to act as a last resort if this trend continues and our government goes full Venezuela on us. I mean have you seen the kind of people who've been in charge for the last two decades? People are both armed and wary of government suppression for good reason.
Aside from the whole insurrection clause, guns are a good thing to have for everyday life in many areas. Police response times are not stellar and a lot of remote or rural areas require people to be self sufficient; especially if trouble arrives like in natural disaster or if natural predators are prowling around your property.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52756248] Should probably read a couple times more because these "bastions of human righst" clearly don't refer to the US, since I mentioned these are nations with no constitutional right to bear arms. I was referring to European nations which for the most part do not allow people to carry guns as a constitutional right yet are also not dictatorships.[/QUOTE]
How is Spain doing by the way?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52756196]
As far as developed nations go, the United States has a fairly sordid history in terms of gun violence and mass shootings. Of all the nations with a very high human development index it is the country with the highest firearm related death rate, which is kind of indicative of the fact that [I]there's a bit of a problem related to firearms[/I].
What that solution is, fuck if I know. Be it limiting purchases, or scrutinizing the owners to a higher extent, or making a federal-level permit/license system, something has to be done because the amount of people who die by gunshot in the US compared to other nations of similar stature in terms of development is disproportional and ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
both you, and the people who compile those statistics, are conveniently ignoring the fact that those gun death statistics include homicide, [I]as well as[/I] suicide and negligent accidents.
I didn't say homicides though, I said deaths in general. Negligent accidents by firearm are still deaths by firearm.
And the US sits [I]below[/I] a whole lot of European nations in terms of suicide rates yet sits [I]above[/I] them in terms of firearm death rates, so clearly it's not the amount of gun suicides that's bumping the statistics so high.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52756418]I didn't say homicides though, I said deaths in general. Negligent accidents by firearm are still deaths by firearm.
And the US sits [I]below[/I] a whole lot of European nations in terms of suicide rates yet sits [I]above[/I] them in terms of firearm death rates, so clearly it's not the amount of gun suicides that's bumping the statistics so high.[/QUOTE]
Its been awhile since i've checked but i believe most firearm related homicides are gang related.
hup, yeah, I was gonna note that in an edit but got ninjad.
most actual gun crime is in the form of good ol' gang violence; ie: the kind of people who are going to kill each other anyways regardless of whether they have a gun or not, and also would not stop possessing guns if they were illegal. funnily enough, career criminals tend to not be too put off by the idea or difficulty of breaking the law. curbing gun homicide in these situations isn't a simple matter of "get rid of the guns", it's a complex mixture of class inequality, racial and ideological unrest, and government overreach in the form of things like the war on drugs. add in the dismal state of mental health care in this country into the mix, and that can also account for the majority of high-profile spree killings.
the trend of public violence in America has nothing to do with access to guns, and demanding they be banned is a knee-jerk oversimplification of the problem to pacify a general public that's too lazy and afraid to work for an actual lasting solution, as well as to shift the blame from career politicians and businessmen who are driving the country into the dirt for personal gain and creating the situations that lead to the violence in the first place.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52756418]I didn't say homicides though, I said deaths in general. Negligent accidents by firearm are still deaths by firearm.
And the US sits [I]below[/I] a whole lot of European nations in terms of suicide rates yet sits [I]above[/I] them in terms of firearm death rates, so clearly it's not the amount of gun suicides that's bumping the statistics so high.[/QUOTE]
Sure but the rates of violence arent that far off. Gun crime is an issue in the US but it isn't fair to blame it all on guns. That violence would still be there even if you took guns out of the equation.
Gun violence is a complicated issue that you can't just blame on the fact that guns exist. If guns weren't there, they would use knives, screwdrivers, cars, and other improvised weapons.
Having yearly classes in school to teach children gun safety, and bettering our mental health care system (and stop villifying people with mental issues) would do wonders to prevent accidental deaths and suicides. Those 2 measures could cut down gun deaths in the US massively.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52756303]Because its not the same. It may seem semantic but its an extremely important distinction to make when writing legislation. It may seem like dumb semantics but its the difference between just bumpfire stocks being banned, and all aftermarket triggers being banned with it.
It shouldn't be up for debate if whether or not legislators need to be specific, precise, and informed with their legislation.[/QUOTE]
If the end goal is to prevent the distribution (at least legally) of products/enhancements designed to increase your effective rate of fire, then I don't see how it's not the same, especially when the end-goal of the devices in question bring your effective fire-rate up to (or at least close to) automatic levels.
Remember that the executive branch is who enforces law. So if congress writes a super vague law that could include tons of other stuff, and we get a president who is anti-gun (so basically any democrat), then they would have the ability to enforce the law to it's furthest possible interpretation.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52756566]If the end goal is to prevent the distribution (at least legally) of products/enhancements designed to increase your effective rate of fire, then I don't see how it's not the same, especially when the end-goal of the devices in question bring your effective fire-rate up to (or at least close to) automatic levels.[/QUOTE]
Again, it seems semantic but theres a very extreme difference between a moving stock and a lighter trigger.
To make a terrible comparison, it would be like them writing legislation to ban the removal of governors on cars, and ended up banning all aftermarket engine modifications. You can see why we would rather the ATF handle it instead of politicians who know very little about firearms.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52755231]Look, my default state, thanks to the 2nd amendment, is being able to purchase firearms. Any time you restrict something about it, its not compromise.
So lemme say it again: Its not compromise if you say "well we'll let you keep THESE things", because my default state is being able to purchase everything.
So when congress says "we'll ban bumpfire stocks", ok, cool, but thats not compromise, thats directly limiting.
Compromise would look like: "we're banning bumpfire stocks, but re-opening the machine gun registry"
Or
"we're banning bumpfire stocks, but we're deregulating suppressors"
Or
"we're banning bumpfire stocks, but we've implemented federal CCW, states get no say in who gets a CCW anymore"
The list goes on and on.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but it absolutely is compromise. Compromise doesn't mean: "agree to this thing and we'll give you something in return". Compromise is two or more people or groups of people making concessions on what they'd like to happen in order to settle a dispute.
Group A wants to have as many guns with as many addons as they like. Group B wants no guns with no addons. As Group B gets bigger, compromise naturally favours them more, because that's how democracy works. If you don't like it then you're free to try and win more people over to be Group A, but it's never the less a state of compromise.
Ofcourse that's a very vapid, surface level example - in reality most people fall somewhere in between Group A and Group B, at least in America, but the point is just because a compromise doesn't benefit you that doesn't mean it's not a compromise - it might just mean that you no longer hold as much bargaining power.
[QUOTE=Rufia;52757501]Sorry, but it absolutely is compromise. Compromise doesn't mean: "agree to this thing and we'll give you something in return". Compromise is two or more people or groups of people making concessions on what they'd like to happen in order to settle a dispute.
Group A wants to have as many guns with as many addons as they like. Group B wants no guns with no addons. As Group B gets bigger, compromise naturally favours them more, because that's how democracy works. If you don't like it then you're free to try and win more people over to be Group A, but it's never the less a state of compromise.
Ofcourse that's a very vapid, surface level example - in reality most people fall somewhere in between Group A and Group B, at least in America, but the point is just because a compromise doesn't benefit you that doesn't mean it's not a compromise - it might just mean that you no longer hold as much bargaining power.[/QUOTE]
com·pro·mise
ˈkämprəˌmīz/Submit
noun
1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
"Give and take" is literally the definition of compromise lol.
Meaning; we give the Dems bumpstocks and they give us unregulated or off-the-NFA suppressors. "We'll take this thing, be glad we're not taking it all" is not a compromise.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52757811]com·pro·mise
ˈkämprəˌmīz/Submit
noun
1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
"Give and take" is literally the definition of compromise lol.
Meaning; we give the Dems bumpstocks and they give us unregulated or off-the-NFA suppressors. "We'll take this thing, be glad we're not taking it all" is not a compromise.[/QUOTE]
I guess nothing will ever change and and we'll just have to suffer through mass shootings and kids accidentally getting shot as americans.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52757910]I guess nothing will ever change and and we'll just have to suffer through mass shootings and kids accidentally getting shot as americans.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Thats the exact point I was trying to make. Thanks for taking a post about how no one in our government is willing to [i]actually [/i] offer a compromise to "Won' somun think of the CHIDLINS???"
Can you make a proper post without oh so dramatically appealing to emotion?
Sorry if I sound like a dick for saying that, but we've stated our position on this and how the ban of bumpstocks will not actually solve anything, and how bans in general wont solve anything.
Just because we refuse to be OK with feel good measures that serve only to punish law abiding gun owners does not mean we're cool with mass shootings or accidental deaths. Theres no need to be silly or dramatic about this.
I'll be not sorry for you cyke I'm tired of juking these attempts at appealing to emotion every time an anti-gun person can't defend an argument. I am more then happy to debate all day but appealing to emotion is a bad "argument" and they should feel bad for making it. It's the gun debate equivalent of "I can't make a valid point anymore but here's some random nonsense to hopefully get off this issue "
I've bowed out of the recent gun control threads due to being far far too busy with school. I'm not try to convince you of anything, I'm just despairing that thousands of people are dying senselessly from something that is wholly manmade and preventable.
Sorry, I'll go express emotion elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52758020]I've bowed out of the recent gun control threads due to being far far too busy with school. I'm not try to convince you of anything, I'm just despairing that thousands of people are dying senselessly from something that is wholly manmade and preventable.
Sorry, I'll go express emotion elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should read the thread before you quote a random post and immediately appeal to emotion and "think of the children!".
Its great you came to a debate thread to not debate, but you should find another outlet to be senselessly emotional, and maybe not blame others for it or throw that emotion on others. Its pretty over dramatic.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52758042]Why do we keep asking for "hey stop making emotional arguments"? Simple: Because emotions make you do stupid shit.[/QUOTE]
Emotions fucking mobilize people though. Trump didn't ride into the white house on the backs of people who were calm. And if you want any of these underlying structural problems fixed, like you suggest, you need to get people mobilized.
fortunately the GOP agenda is super unpopular and people are pretty angry about it
[media]https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/834542545560543232[/media]
Emotion gives you the goal. Rational thought gets you to the goal effectively and efficiently.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52758110]Emotions fucking mobilize people though. Trump didn't ride into the white house on the backs of people who were calm. And if you want any of these underlying structural problems fixed, like you suggest, you need to get people mobilized.
fortunately the GOP agenda is super unpopular and people are pretty angry about it
[media]https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/834542545560543232[/media][/QUOTE]
Using the last election as an example of how people getting mobilized based on emotion instead of facts is a terrible example. The people who voted for him voted for him based on emotion rather than objective facts. Because people acted on their emotions, which were completely unfounded, we now have the worst president of all time in office, hes been a national embarrassment, and stands to do great damage to this nation.
This is why acting on emotions instead of facts is an awful fucking idea.
you just torpedoed your own argument while trying to make said argument. Your post stated quite possibly the number 1 reason why emotion should not enter into the picture when dealing with matters relating to the government
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52758042]Why do we keep asking for "hey stop making emotional arguments"? Simple: Because emotions make you do stupid shit.
For perfect example: The New York SAFE act was passed so rapidly, that it lacked a provision allowing police officers to carry their weapons. Meaning for 24 (IIRC) hours, the police could not LEGALLY carry their weapons to do their own jobs.
Another example that's not gun related is something that happened recently in my state. We passed a bill a bit ago named after some dude that killed himself, and it directed schools to hire more counselors and be more proactive. Guess what, it has no increase in funding for the schools, and is so vaguely worded that the school systems are actively writing letters to the legislature saying "what do you mean be more proactive".
Emotions produce bad bills, bad bills are hard to enforce (if not impossible) and literally drain money from the entities that would enforce them.
That's why emotions have no place in the halls of legislature. If I had my way, if you made an emotional appeal in congress/state legislature, you'd immediately lose your seat and be banned from holding office. If you can't do things with objective facts then you don't need to do them at all.
EDIT:
Here's some non emotional, non feel good, OBJECTIVE ways to reduce gun crime (crime in general really), that would work in the US, hands down.
1. Rebuild healthcare system from the ground up
2. Rework our Social services, including social safety nets (IE Wealthfare, WIC, etc etc etc)
3. Rework colleges and certifications, combat the rampant deprecation of a college degree, combat the rampant needless requirement for a college degree (a forklift driver shouldn't need a bachlors degree)
4. Rebuild our education system from the ground up, eliminate all standards except federal standards, states get no say in content of education
5. Work with FBI and Police to further improve database functionality, improve communication protocols between departments
Those 5 things, just those 5 things, would do SO much more to combat gun crime than any licensing scheme, any ban plan, any "well just get rid of x" scheme.
Bonus points:
6. Improve prison system, make education mandatory part of sentencing
7. Rebuild felony system, remove the idea of permanent punishment
8. End the war on drugs, begin the war on addiction (Create a nationwide safety net for addicts looking to break the addiction)
9. Better family education and planning (IE Stop getting pregnant when you can't afford it, and stop knocking women up who you don't intend on staying with)[/QUOTE]
As a bonus to reducing gun crime, the above changes would make nearly everyone's life better. They are simply good ideas that would address all manner of problems that virtually everyone could support. Obviously the far right would continue to be an issue, but they are incapable of being happy, so that isn't really a concern.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52758042]Why do we keep asking for "hey stop making emotional arguments"? Simple: Because emotions make you do stupid shit.
For perfect example: The New York SAFE act was passed so rapidly, that it lacked a provision allowing police officers to carry their weapons. Meaning for 24 (IIRC) hours, the police could not LEGALLY carry their weapons to do their own jobs.
Another example that's not gun related is something that happened recently in my state. We passed a bill a bit ago named after some dude that killed himself, and it directed schools to hire more counselors and be more proactive. Guess what, it has no increase in funding for the schools, and is so vaguely worded that the school systems are actively writing letters to the legislature saying "what do you mean be more proactive".
Emotions produce bad bills, bad bills are hard to enforce (if not impossible) and literally drain money from the entities that would enforce them.
That's why emotions have no place in the halls of legislature. If I had my way, if you made an emotional appeal in congress/state legislature, you'd immediately lose your seat and be banned from holding office. If you can't do things with objective facts then you don't need to do them at all.
EDIT:
Here's some non emotional, non feel good, OBJECTIVE ways to reduce gun crime (crime in general really), that would work in the US, hands down.
1. Rebuild healthcare system from the ground up
2. Rework our Social services, including social safety nets (IE Wealthfare, WIC, etc etc etc)
[B]3. Rework colleges and certifications, combat the rampant deprecation of a college degree, combat the rampant needless requirement for a college degree (a forklift driver shouldn't need a bachlors degree)[/B]
4. Rebuild our education system from the ground up, eliminate all standards except federal standards, states get no say in content of education
5. Work with FBI and Police to further improve database functionality, improve communication protocols between departments
Those 5 things, just those 5 things, would do SO much more to combat gun crime than any licensing scheme, any ban plan, any "well just get rid of x" scheme.
Bonus points:
6. Improve prison system, make education mandatory part of sentencing
7. Rebuild felony system, remove the idea of permanent punishment
8. End the war on drugs, begin the war on addiction (Create a nationwide safety net for addicts looking to break the addiction)
9. Better family education and planning (IE Stop getting pregnant when you can't afford it, and stop knocking women up who you don't intend on staying with)[/QUOTE]
I had to bold and bring up this point because it's gotten to the retarded point where I remember seeing an ad for a Domino's pizza delivery driver, one of the things required was 2 years experience in delivery... For a fucking pizza delivery job? That shit is supposed to be entry level. Trying to find work without some college education as a requirement is a nightmare, let alone other bullshit like what I mentioned, it makes trying to find a job overall just fucking depressing.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52750452]For one: universal enforcement of background checks and paper trails for all transactions of all classes of firearms in all states. Currently, only nine states (all of which saw marked decreases in gun violence) enforce that.
The "unlicensed seller" loophole needs to be plugged. All weapon sales must be made to go through federal channels, with background checks and a paper trail, because that shit [I]does[/I] work in most cases to keep guns out of dangerous hands. Weapons that are sold without such checks can and should be illegal to own, with confiscation and destruction of the weapon, fines and/or jail time for violations.[/QUOTE]
1. Name a recent mass shooting that would have been prevented if the shooter hadn't been able to get guns from a private seller.
2. That's not a loophole, it's one of those rare compromises we hear about. In the 1986 FOPA bill, the Democrats conceded private sales in order to get the original background check laws passed.
[editline]8th October 2017[/editline]
Here's a compromise: ban bumpfire stocks, gat triggers and the like, and take suppressors off the NFA. Normal background check for a muffler.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52757811]com·pro·mise
ˈkämprəˌmīz/Submit
noun
1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
"Give and take" is literally the definition of compromise lol.[/QUOTE]
It literally isn't. Don't boil down the definition of a word to as basic a turn a phrase as you can muster and then treat that as the literal meaning of the word. The concessions, in this context, are made from the point of view of what each side thinks should happen in the dispute.
[QUOTE] Meaning; we give the Dems bumpstocks and they give us unregulated or off-the-NFA suppressors. "We'll take this thing, be glad we're not taking it all" is not a compromise.[/QUOTE]
A compromise in democracy isn't a business transaction, it's a conflict of ideals. Group A wants all guns, Group B wants no guns. Since this is a democracy we need some form of consensus so Group A concedes that maybe they can ban certain types of gun even if Group A doesn't really agree with it, and Group B concedes that maybe they can keep certain other types of gun even if Group B doesn't really agree with it. As Group A gets bigger, Group B has to make greater concessions on what they'd like to happen. As Group B gets bigger, Group A has to make greater concessions on what they'd like to happen.
Again, a gross oversimplification, but what you're frustrated with here is the very nature of democracy.
[QUOTE=Rufia;52759337]It literally isn't. Don't boil down the definition of a word to as basic a turn a phrase as you can muster and then treat that as the literal meaning of the word. The concessions, in this context, are made from the point of view of what each side thinks should happen in the dispute.
A compromise in democracy isn't a business transaction, it's a conflict of ideals. Group A wants all guns, Group B wants no guns. Since this is a democracy we need some form of consensus so Group A concedes that maybe they can ban certain types of gun even if Group A doesn't really agree with it, and Group B concedes that maybe they can keep certain other types of gun even if Group B doesn't really agree with it. As Group A gets bigger, Group B has to make greater concessions on what they'd like to happen. As Group B gets bigger, Group A has to make greater concessions on what they'd like to happen.
Again, a gross oversimplification, but what you're frustrated with here is the very nature of democracy.[/QUOTE]
Then perhaps politicians should use a word other than "compromise" when they intend to take and not to give, because thats not a compromise.
Youre still inherently wrong about the definition. It might mean something else in backass political terms, but me taking half of something when I want all of it would not be considered a compromise in any other scenario.
[editline]8th October 2017[/editline]
Either way, it doesn't matter. Thats now how democracy or gun legislation should work.
[QUOTE=Rufia;52759337]It literally isn't. Don't boil down the definition of a word to as basic a turn a phrase as you can muster and then treat that as the literal meaning of the word. The concessions, in this context, are made from the point of view of what each side thinks should happen in the dispute.
A compromise in democracy isn't a business transaction, it's a conflict of ideals. Group A wants all guns, Group B wants no guns. Since this is a democracy we need some form of consensus so Group A concedes that maybe they can ban certain types of gun even if Group A doesn't really agree with it, and Group B concedes that maybe they can keep certain other types of gun even if Group B doesn't really agree with it. As Group A gets bigger, Group B has to make greater concessions on what they'd like to happen. As Group B gets bigger, Group A has to make greater concessions on what they'd like to happen.
Again, a gross oversimplification, but what you're frustrated with here is the very nature of democracy.[/QUOTE]
Except this is the kind of shit we've been repeating for the last half century.
"I have altered the 2nd amendment. Pray that I do not alter it any further" is not a valid compromise. It's getting to the point where it's ridiculous as:
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.